Concordance between a neuroradiologist, a consultant radiologist and trained reporting radiographers interpreting MRI head examinations: An empirical study.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed agreement between MRI reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared with an index neuroradiologist when reporting MRI head (brain/internal auditory meati [IAMs]) examinations. The effect on patient management of any discordant reports was also examined. METHODS: Two trained MRI reporting radiographers (RRs), a consultant radiologist (CR) and an index neuroradiologist (INR) reported on a random sample of 210 MRI examinations. The radiographers reported during clinical practice and the radiologists in clinical practice conditions. Two independent consultant physicians (neuro-rehabilitation and neuropsychiatry) compared these reports with the index neuroradiologist report for agreement and the clinical importance of discrepant reports. RESULTS: Overall observer agreement between the RRs and CR was comparable in relation to agreement with the INR: RR; 93/210 (44.3%); and the CR; 83/210 (39.4%) for all head MRI examinations (p = 0.32). For brain examinations the difference was similar: RR; 64/180 (35.6%); and CR; 54/190 (30.0%), p = 0.26. Agreement rates for the IAMs examinations were identical, 29/30 (97.7%). For all head MRI examinations (n = 210) there was a very small observed difference of <0.5% in mean agreement between the reporting radiographers and the consultant radiologist (p = 0.92) for examinations where a major disagreement would have been likely to have led to a change in patient management. CONCLUSION: MRI reporting radiographers reported during clinical practice on MRI head examinations to a level of agreement comparable with a consultant radiologist. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is an area in which radiographers could provide additional reporting roles to the reporting service to increase capacity. Wider potential benefits include cost-effectiveness and role development/retention of radiographers.

A diagnostic system using broad categories with clinically relevant specifiers: lessons for ICD-11.

A diagnostic system for ICD-11 is proposed which commences with broad reorganization and simplification of the current categories and the use of clinically relevant specifiers. Such changes have implications for the positioning of diagnostic groups and lead to a range of possibilities for improving terminology and the juxtaposition of individual conditions. The development of ICD-11 provides the fi rst opportunity in almost two decades to improve the validity and reliability of the international classification system. Widespread change in broad categories and criteria cannot be justified by research that has emerged since the last revision. It would also be disruptive to clinical practice and might devalue past research work. However, the case for reorganization of the categories is stronger and has recently been made by an eminent international group of researchers (Andrews et al., 2009). A simpler, interlinked diagnostic system is proposed here which is likely to have fewer categories than its predecessor. There are major advantages of such a system for clinical practice and research and it could also produce much needed simplification for primary care (Gask et al., 2008) and the developing world (Wig, 1990; Kohn et al., 2004).